The ‘work group’: redressing the balance in bion’s experiences in groups abstract



Download 112.83 Kb.
Page3/3
Date09.08.2017
Size112.83 Kb.
1   2   3
Eisold, K. Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy: a long and troubled relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2005a, 86, 1175-95.
Eisold, K. Using Bion. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2005b, 22, 357-69.
Fraher, A.L. A history of group study and psychodynamic organizations. London: Free Association Books, 2004.
French, R. Friendship and organization: Learning from the western friendship tradition’. Management & Organizational History, 2007, 2, 255-72.
French, R., Simpson, P. & Harvey, C. Downplaying leadership: Researching how leaders talk about themselves. Leadership, 2006, 2, 469-79.
Gilmore, T.N. Productive pairs. Briefing Note. Philadelphia: Center for Applied Research, 1999.
Gosling, R. The everyday work group. In B. Sievers & D. Armstrong (Eds.) Discovering social meaning: A Festschrift for W. Gordon Lawrence. 1994, unpublished.
Gould, L.J., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) The systems psychodynamics of organizations: Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems perspectives. London: Karnac, 2001.
Gould, L.J., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) Experiential learning in organizations: Applications of the Tavistock group relations approach. London: Karnac, 2004.
Grotstein, J.S. The seventh servant: The implications of a truth drive in Bion’s theory of ‘O’. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2004, 85, 1081-101.
Grotstein, J.S. A beam of intense darkness: Wilfred Bion’s legacy to psychoanalysis. London: Karnac, 2007.
Hadot, P. The veil of Isis: An essay on the history of the idea of nature. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006.
Hinshelwood, R. Group mentality and ‘having a mind’. In R.M. Lipgar & M. Pines (Eds.), Building on Bion: Roots. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003, 181-97.
Hopper, E. Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups. The fourth basic assumption: Incohesion: Aggregation/ Massification or (ba) I:A/M. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003.
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J. (Eds.) Working below the surface: The emotional life of contemporary organizations. London: Karnac, 2004.
Human Relations, Special issue: Integrating psychodynamic and organizational theory, 1999, 52.
Jaques, E. Requisite organization. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall & Co., 1989.
Jaques, E. Why the psychoanalytical approach to understanding organizations is dysfunctional. Human Relations, 1995, 48, 343-49.
Karnac, H. Bion's legacy: Bibliography of primary and secondary sources of the life, work and ideas of Wilfred Ruprecht Bion. London: Karnac, 2008.
Kuhn, T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Lawrence, W.G. Exploring individual and organizational boundaries. London: John Wiley, 1979. [Reprinted Karnac, 1999.]
Lawrence, W.G., Bain, A. & Gould, L. The fifth basic assumption. Free Associations, 1996, 6, 28-55.
Levine, D.P. Thinking about doing: On learning from experience and the flight from thinking. Human Relations, 2002, 55, 1251-68.
Lipgar R. & Pines M. (Eds.), Building on Bion: Roots – Origins and context of Bion's contributions to theory and practice. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003a.

Lipgar R. & Pines M. (Eds.), Building on Bion: Branches – Contemporary developments and applications of Bion's contributions to theory and practice. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003b.


López-Corvo, R.E. The dictionary of the work of W.R. Bion. London: Karnac, 2003.
Loveridge, R., Willman, P. & Deery, S. 60 years of Human Relations. Human Relations, 2007, 60, 1873-88.
Menzies-Lyth, I. The life of Isabel Menzies-Lyth: interviewed by Braka Pecotic. Organizational & Social Dynamics, 2002, 2, 2-42.
Miller, E. A note on the protomental system and “groupishness”: Bion’s basic assumptions revisited. Human Relations, 1998, 51, 1495-508.
Neri, C. Groups. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1998.
Neri, C. Anthropological psychoanalysis: Bion’s journeying in Italy. In R. Lipgar & M. Pines (Eds.), Building on Bion: Roots. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003, 132-50.
Pahl, R. Friendship: The social glue of contemporary society? In J. Franklin (Ed.), The politics of risk society. Oxford: Polity Press, 1997, 99-119.
Palmer, B. In which the Tavistock paradigm is considered as a discursive practice. Organisational and Social Dynamics, 2000, 1, 8-20.
Palmer, B. The Tavistock paradigm: Inside, outside and beyond. In R.D. Hinshelwood & M. Chiesa (Eds.), Organisations, anxieties and defences: Towards a psychoanalytic social psychology. London: Whurr, 2002, 158-82.
Pines, M. (Ed.) Bion and group psychotherapy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.
Riesenberg-Malcolm, R. On bearing unbearable states of mind. London: Routledge, 1999.
Sanfuentes, M. Group dynamics: A re-view. In R.M. Lipgar & M. Pines (Eds.), Building on Bion: Roots. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003, 118-31.
Stokes, J. The unconscious at work in groups and teams: contributions from the work of Wilfred Bion. In A. Obholzer & V. Zagier Roberts (Eds.), The unconscious at work: individual and organizational stress in the human services. London: Routledge, 1994, 19-27.

Symington, J. & Symington, N. The clinical thinking of Wilfred Bion. London: Routledge, 1996.


Trist, E. & Murray, H. (Eds.) The social engagement of social science, Volume 1: The socio-psychological perspective. A Tavistock anthology. London: Free Association Books, 1990.
Turquet, P. Leadership: The individual and the group. In G.S. Gibbard (Ed.), Analysis of groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.



1 Bion published ‘Group relations: A re-view’ on three occasions, 1952, 1955 and 1961, making changes in 1955, which reflect his psychoanalytic work. For analysis of these changes, see Sanfuentes, 2003.


2 For the development of Bion’s ideas on groups and their application in a variety of organizational and educational contexts, see for example, Human Relations, special issue on integrating psychodynamic and organizational theory, 1999, 52(6); Armstrong, 2005; Colman & Geller, 1985; Cytrynbaum & Noumair, 2004; Fraher, 2004; Gould et al., 2001, 2004; Hopper, 2003; Lawrence, 1979; Lipgar & Pines, 2003a, 2003b; Palmer, 2000, 2002; Pines, 1985; Trist & Murray, 1990. For a full bibliography of Bion’s work and secondary literature, see Karnac, 2008.


3 We also follow Bion’s use of ‘basic assumption’ and ‘work group’ without hyphens when used as nouns, and with hyphens when used as adjectival phrases – ‘basic-assumption mentality’, ‘work-group mentality’ – despite discrepancies in the literature on Bion, and even occasionally in his own work: ‘a part of basic assumption mentality’ (Bion, 1961: 159).


4 This imbalance is reflected in the proliferation of work on the basic assumptions. For example, two recent volumes, Building on Bion (Lipgar & Pines, 2003a, 2003b), include 90 references to basic assumptions but only 14 to the work group. The three Group Relations Readers (Colman & Bexton, 1975; Colman & Geller, 1985; Cytrynbaum & Noumair, 2004) have between them three times more references to basic assumptions than to the work group; and Pines (1985) has 42 references to basic assumptions but none at all to the work group. Similarly, in the recent Dictionary of the Work of W.R. Bion (López-Corvo, 2003), the entry for ‘Basic assumption’ is twice as long as that for ‘Work group’, and there are separate entries for each of Bion’s three assumptions, as well as a further entry for ‘Oscillations of Dependent basic assumptions’. More striking than the sheer weight of references, however, is the fact that the basic assumptions have been extended in a way that simply has not occurred with the work group. Bion himself describes three basic assumptions, pairing (baP), dependence (baD) and fight-flight (baF), while leaving work-group mentality (W) undifferentiated, as an apparently unified state. A fourth assumption has been identified, differently described as basic-assumption Oneness (baO) by Turquet (1974), and as basic-assumption Incohesion: Aggregation/ Massification (baIA/M) by Hopper (2003); and a fifth by Lawrence et al. (1996) – basic-assumption Me-ness (baM).


5 In the literature, there is some variation in the use of abbreviations; here we follow Bion (1961: 105): baP, baD, baF and W.


6 The description early in Experiences in Groups of seven qualities making up the ‘good group spirit’ (Bion, 1961: 25) might be taken as a preliminary sketch of the characteristics of work-group mentality.


7 For the importance of the idea of learning by experience in Bion’s work, see Bion, 1962, 1967. See also Levine, 2002.


8 This group state is reminiscent of ‘the phenomenon of not learning’ in individual analysis, described by Riesenberg-Malcolm; an ‘as-if’ response, which she suggests is unconsciously intended ‘precisely to avoid any emotional learning.’ (Riesenberg-Malcolm, 1999: 125-6.)


9 It may not be surprising that it was in the context of work with leaders that we first had these thoughts. Bion asserted that: ‘All three basic assumptions contain the idea of a leader.’ (Bion, 1961: 160.)





Download 112.83 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page